I have been concerned about the Pentagon’s program to enlist anthropologists into its “Human Terrain System” (HTS) program ever since I first heard about it. The relationship between western “anthropology” (literally, in Greek, a “study of the human condition”) and various extremely exploitative colonial ventures over the past 120 years is very well-known.
Recently, I identified one of my key concerns with this latest version of the same-old, same-old attempt to use specialized knowledge about the condition of other peoples in order to subjugate and control them. It is this idea that our fellow-humans around the world could be considered, in the military sense or any other sense, to be merely “terrain” to be fought over, won, and controlled.
In military science, geographical terrain (from the Latin, meaning “earth”) is something that is to be studied, mapped, and understood– and then, that understanding is used in order to control and exploit that terrain.
So what are we saying about our fellow-humans if we say they are merely “terrain”?
Isn’t calling them “terrain” worse, actually, than using the many zoomorphic slur-words that are used to dehumanize and denigrate human “others”? Like former Israeli Chief of Staff’s infamous reference to Palestinians as “cockroaches” or “flies in a bottle,” or any other reference to opponents being merely “animals”… Other examples of zoomorphic denigration are too numerous to list.
The idea that our fellow humans in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else are merely “terrain” can be traced, most recently, to the US military’s late-2006 counter-insurgency manual (PDF here), as co-authored by Gen. Petraeus. One of the key arguments made there was that “the key battlespace is the mind of the citizens of the ‘Host Nation’.” (The whole COIN concept was built, we can note, on the key assumption that the US military would be waging its COIN warfare inside other people’s countries.)
So what the Human Terrain System program seeks to do is to provide the key cultural/sociological knowledge required for the US military to be able to control and exploit the minds of those other, non-US men and women.
Now, when a military is waging a campaign that control and exploit geographical terrain, some of that terrain may get chewed up, burned, or suffer other other non-trivial damage. How about when it is waging a campaign to control and exploit the mental “terrain” of our fellow-humans in a distant country?
The mental damage inflicted on subjugated others in the more known-of places like Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo is only the tip of a vast iceberg of damage inflicted.
Think of the million-plus children among the 2.5 million residents of Sadr City. How has their mental, social, and spiritual wellbeing been affected by the assaults the US military has launched against Sadr City over the recent weeks?
Think of the four million or so Iraqis displaced from their homes and scattered to places of distant (and always vulnerable) refugee over the past 30 months. How has their mental and spiritual wellbeing been affected?
It strikes me, though, that the people who run and implement the US military’s “Human Terrain” program are also suffering significant spiritual damage through their participation in this very anti-humane venture. They have been conditioned to believe that they have some kind of “right”, as contractors with or members of the US military, to intrude into, study, and map the lives of subjugated Iraqis, with the aim that the US military can use this knowledge to control and exploit those others.
That, to me, is what the dehumanizing term “human terrain” connotes.
How spiritually sick can a person get?
You can find a a good round-up of recent controversies around the HTS program here, on the Mind Hacks blog.
That blog post links to this recent Newsweek article on the program, and this subsequent piece on the Wired blog, in which the female anthropologist Montgomery McFate, one of the program’s main architects, defends it.
The Newsweek piece is titled “A Gun in One Hand, A Pen in the Other”, and is illustrated with a photo of a female in full military combat gear, with a helmet and body armor, who is standing in what may be the public square of an Iraqi town. She is earnestly taking notes by hand in a little notebook.
In the piece, the writers, Dan Ephron and Silvia Spring write about one HTS participant that, “Though he wears Army fatigues and carries a gun, Griffin is a civilian, part of a controversial program known as the Human Terrain System.” They also write, “For their services, the anthropologists get up to $300,000 annually while posted abroad—a salary that is six times higher than the national average for their field.” Clearly, for many newly-minted anthropologists who have heavy grad-school debts to repay, the pay would be quite a draw. As, too, might the idea that they could “study” people foreign culture, thus building up their research credentials in the fild– and get paid quite handsomely while doing so.
Last October, the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, the professional body of US practitioners and teachers in the field, issued a strong statement that measured the HTS program against the ethical standards of their profession and concluded that they disapproved” of the program. The statement added:
- In the context of a war that is widely recognized as a denial of human rights and based on faulty intelligence and undemocratic principles, the Executive Board sees the HTS project as a problematic application of anthropological expertise, most specifically on ethical grounds. We have grave concerns about the involvement of anthropological knowledge and skill in the HTS project. The Executive Board views the HTS project as an unacceptable application of anthropological expertise.
The Executive Board affirms that anthropology can and in fact is obliged to help improve U.S. government policies through the widest possible circulation of anthropological understanding in the public sphere, so as to contribute to a transparent and informed development and implementation of U.S. policy by robustly democratic processes of fact-finding, debate, dialogue, and deliberation. It is in this way, the Executive Board affirms, that anthropology can legitimately and effectively help guide U.S. policy to serve the humane causes of global peace and social justice.
In general, this is a good and strong statement. Personally, I would not have put in the explanatory clause with which the first of those paragraphs starts– or perhaps, I would have phrased it differently. I believe the ethical problems they earlier identified– and in particular the impossibility of obtaining the “informed consent” of subjects of study in a context when the “anthropologist” in question is wearing the uniform of and carrying the gun of an occupying army– make the project “a problematic application of anthropological expertise”, regardless of how the war and occupation started. To believe that anyone can wear the uniform, carry the gun, be a member of a mutually supporting sub-unit of an occupation army, and be considered by anyone to be an objective observer– let alone a friendly fellow-human with whom a “native”{ person might voluntarily share one’s view of the world– simply boggles the mind.
(Why does the name of the Israeli “anthropologist” Clinton Bailey keep popping into my mind?)
The dilemma faced by many anthropologists seems similar to that faced by some humanitarian-aid workers in recent years. Back in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq., the US military made broad efforts to try to “enlist” the collaboration of many US relief agencies. At one point, Rumsfeld even openly said that the activities of such groups could act as “force mulitpliers” for the US invasion force (which otherwise might have to fulfill its own responsibilities to the Iraqi population as occupying power in Iraq.) I know that many of my friends in the humanitarian-aid community agonized over whether and how far to coordinate with the invasion force. They wanted to “be ready to help” deal with the humanitarian disasters that might accompany a US invasion of Iraq, but they also wanted to be able to do so in way that did not associate them with the policies and priorities of the invading/occupying army.
As the occupation ground on, year after year, the dilemmas continued. I have spoken to some western aid workers who strongly shunned any collaboration with the occupation forces, and who also, with great courage, refused to hire armed guards to accompany either their aid convoys or themselves. But the security situation got worse and worse. Their aid convoys became harder and harder to organize. I am not sure if any of those convoys are being organized at all these days.
This reminds me, too, of Harold Evans, the Quaker from Philadelphia who back in May 1948 had been named by UNSCOP as “municipal commissioner” of the internationally administered “corpus separatum” that, according to the 1947 Partition Plan, was supposed to be established in Jerusalem and a broad area around it. Evans reportedly got as far as Cairo, but he then refused to proceed any further until the British military who were in control there would allow him to do so without a military escort.
You could say that maybe some bloodshed could have been avoided in Jerusalem if he had gotten there to administer it? I think that to say that, would be to credit Quakers with too much power and influence!
Actually, the British were determined to stick to their timetable to take their military out of the whole of Palestine, regardless of whether (as occurred) Arab-Jewish fighting thereafter engulfed the whole of the area of Mandate Palestine, including Jerusalem. So I strongly doubt whether Evans would have had a chance to make a difference in Jerusalem. Meanwhile, though, he kept himself– and by extension, most other Quakers– unsullied from entanglement in the British military’s schemes.
In Evans’s case, and in the cases where people are trying to carry out unquestionably humanitarian aid missions, these can agonizingly tough judgments to make.
But in the case where anthropology professionals are being asked to gather knowledge about– and then, to share with a military occupation army– information about the mores and views of the “occupied” people, I don’t think the ethical judgment is a difficult one at all.
Well it would appear that eather the COIN doctrine or Gen. Petraeus’s implimentation got it wrong which isn’t suprising. I happen to think both. The idea that the ability to emprovise, adapt, and overcome is the exclusive domain of the US Military is crap and will distroy us every time. These are people and if you don’t treat them as such they will bring you to grief.
We are in trouble not only because these are people but also because of the lack of a ligitimate reason for being there and doing what we are doing.
That kind of ‘anthropology’ derives from the mindset from the colonial times of the past centuries when the White Race of Europe put Natives of their colonial possessions in artfully displayed “villages” in their World Exhibitions (Chicago, Paris, Berlin) and these ‘other’ people were considered like specimens in the museum or a Zoo. To my knowledge no other race has done it to the Whites, – to put them in their garbs on display in showcases.
I find your blog very informative and without bias or hidden agenda. It is incredibly important to have resource such as your blog.
Please excuse my following crudeness. It is not my nature but I know of no other way to say it.
The mission of the army, and I speak particularly of the infantry, is to close with the enemy and destroy it. That’s right, IT. The enemy must be DE-personalized, not studied and understood. One can’t readily destroy someone one has studied and understood, right?
In basic training soldiers are first cleansed of any of their humanitarian bents and then trained to be mindless killers. KILL, KILL, KILL. There’s your “military science.”
In Vietnam (I know, this dates me) there was a “hearts and minds” program. The troops, trained killers, were told, amusingly, that one of their goals was to “win the hearts and minds” of the people they were attacking, and who at any moment might attack them. The usual response of the troops was: Grab them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow. A little GI humor there. In other words, force rules.
I have seen no evidence that this philosophy has changed at all, reading the latest news about hospital destruction etc. So I wouldn’t be too concerned about any reliance of the military upon anthropology, in preference to, say, a four point two inch mortar or a tomahawk missile.
In other word I have complete faith in the military that it will forever retain its kill-or-be-killed outlook, particularly in the asymmetrical combat, opposed military occupations that now seem to be the rule.
There is no good side to war. It is useless to try to differentiate any part of it as better or worse than the rest — every part of it is bad. It can’t be improved or changed for the better or for the worse. It should only be avoided.
Helena,
There is article in Arabic talking about the similarities between Mongolian invasion of Islamic capital Baghdad under Holako Khan (1258) command and their distraction to famous city on the earth and Bush war (2003), they list a lot of point that the invasion of Iraq is designed and extracted some lessons from Haulage time.
One example was how human been behaved silly under e fear and shocks of mass murdering and killing that made people to be like sheep waiting for slaughtering article list one example of Margoles solders have no sowed in his hand but he asked civilians to lay on the ground and they obeyed him he went far from then to bring his sword they did not moved or flee from him, they waiting for their death and he did slaughtered all of them,
This is the shock and Awe designed war Helena.
BTW, if you like I have the article in pdf, I can send to you.
using the many zoomorphic slur-words that are used to dehumanize and denigrate human
Sanded In Baghdad
by Tom Fox
The Mongols
Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin – Green Bay
One of the most telling is Genghis Khan’s purported value statement. During a respite from his campaigns, he once asked some friends what the greatest pleasure was. After they variously answered hunting, falconry, or archery, Genghis is reputed to have said:
BUSH War
Grand Theft Iraq
By Felicity Arbuthnot
The Mongols
BUSH War
blasting AC/DC’s “Hell’s Bells”:
“If you’re into evil you’re a friend of mine,
See my white light flashing as I split the night,
’cause if God’s on the left, then I’m stickin’ to the right,
I won’t take no prisoners, won’t spare no lives,
Nobody’s puttin’ up a fight,
I got my bell, I’m gonna take you to hell,
I’m gonna get you, Satan get you.
Hell’s Bells, Satan’s comin’ to you.
Hell’s Bells, he’s ringing them now.
Hell’s Bells, the temperature’s high.
Hell’s Bells, across the sky.
Hell’s Bells, they’re takin’ you down.
Hell’s Bells, they’re draggin’ you around.
Hell’s Bells, gonna split the night.
Hell’s Bells, there’s no way to fight, yeah.”
MEETING WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION
ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
New York
Friday, 18 April 2008
In the case where anthropology professionals are being asked to gather knowledge about– and then, to share with a military occupation army– information about the mores and views of the “occupied” people, I don’t think the ethical judgment is a difficult one at all.
Imputation of guilt by association is not far off here.
The writer might be asked to compare the “anthropology profession” with the violence profession. Is the reputation of all soldiers up for grabs because some of them conscientiously support the current aggression? Whatever answer may be given to that question, does the same answer apply to all anthropologists as well? To all used car salesmen? If not, why not?
To move beyond moralizing, would it be academically acceptable if a few self-selected anthropologists were to gather “information about the mores and views of an occupied people” and then share their results with all the world, not merely with “a military occupation army”? Probably the offer of collaboration would be withdrawn from the War Department’s side if that condition were insisted upon, but that is not entirely certain. There is at least a slight chance that somebody at the Pentagon, or even somebody down at Rancho Crawford, might notice the funny side of treating the Arab Mind as a matter still to know classified secrets about after more than two dozen centuries of historical visibility.
Happy days.
Back when Lugar was something like a human being with a conscience and a semblance of sanity, that is, before he decided to join the GOP lockstep, he argued very cogently that it was wrong to fund the military at such a high level and the State Department barely at all, in relative terms.
He was right, back then. All these issues, like anthropology, are falling to the military because the State Department is increasingly simply irrelevant. The military option isn’t just on the table at all times (which it shouldn’t be); more and more it pretty much IS the table.
Back when Lugar was something like a human being with a conscience and a semblance of sanity, that is, before he decided to join the GOP lockstep, he argued very cogently that it was wrong to fund the military at such a high level and the State Department barely at all, in relative terms.
He was right, back then. All these issues, like anthropology, are falling to the military because the State Department is increasingly simply irrelevant. The military option isn’t just on the table at all times (which it shouldn’t be); more and more it pretty much IS the table.
Helena,
For more about this see a recent conference at the University of Chicago, “Conference on Anthropology and Global Counterinsurgency.”
http://anthroandwar.uchicago.edu/
Helena,
But in the case where anthropology professionals are being asked to gather knowledge about– and then, to share with a military occupation army– information about the mores and views of the “occupied” people, I don’t think the ethical judgment is a difficult one at all.
Helena is this first time professionals doing work for US a military occupation army?
What they did in Salvador, What they did in Vietnam most importantly what they done and doing with Israel either Israelis or US professionals.
Simply there is no ethical when it comes to war of choose.
What the Iraq war is all about
Paul Craig Roberts is a former editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He served as assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy during the Reagan administration.
How about some anthropologists studying the Pentagon? Why do they act they way that they do? They certainly aren’t your average American, or average anything, acting in the inexplicably immoral ways that they do. I think they would be a rich source of study, much more interesting than the ordinary pretty-much-like-us folks we’d find in Country A or B.
“These are people and if you don’t treat them as such they will bring you to grief.”
“…the ordinary pretty-much-like-us folks we’d find in Country A or B.”
This is the single most important thing to understand. They are not some exotic species that needs to be studied to be understood, they are human beings who are, in the most important core aspects, very much like all other human beings, and who react very much as any other human beings react to being treated as less than human. You don’t need to hire anthropologists to know how Iraqis will react to seeing their cities bombed to smithereens and their humanity denied by arrogant foreigners who swagger, armed to the teeth, down their streets threatening them and treating them like dirt. And you don’t need anthropologists to study Iraqis to know how they will react to having their country and their lives taken over and turned topsy turvy by arrogant foreigners who can’t even be bothered to pronounce the name of their country properly.
This “human terrain” project is just another aspect of the dehumanization of the conquered people.
“Canadian Becomes First Child Soldier Since Nurenberg to Stand Trial for War Crimes” is the story of Omar Khadr, a Canadian national who was 15 years old at the time of his alleged crime, lobbing a grenade at an American soldier in Afganistan. He is now 21 years old and has spent a quarter of his life at Guantanamo.
There is a Camp Iguana at Guantanamo, a camp for minors. How many other imprisoned children are there at Guantanamo?
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/07/8773/
I agree with Don Bacon. Where are the anthropologists that should be studying the primitive society called The Pentagon?